ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047648
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Raquel Escribano Sanchez | Nest Childcare And Montessori |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00058672-001 | 05/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent creche from 23rd of August 2021 until the 30th of June 2023. In Summer 2022 the Respondent instituted an attendance bonus scheme which promised to pay 10% of salary as a bonus if staff attended on time.
The Complainant was not paid the bonus. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation with the assistance of a translator. She was assistant manager in her branch. The attendance bonus was clearly communicated in emails which she provided to the hearing. The first time the attendance bonus became due was in September 2022 but she was not paid. It was supposed to be paid quarterly. The Complainant followed up with management on a number of times and was told the bonus would be paid but was delayed until the next quarter. Management were always clear that the scheme was still in place these issues were just delays. When she left the creche she was still waiting for payment. She then realised she might not get paid the bonus and filed this complaint. She never missed a day and she really loved the job. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Colm Bowers attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. He does not dispute the Complainant’s evidence. She was an excellent worker and he was sorry to see her go. The intention always was pay the Complainant the bonus however the Respondent simply did not have the funds. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent instituted a bonus scheme. The Complainant abided by the terms of the scheme. I am satisfied that the bonus became properly payable to the Complainant under the payment of wages act. While I understand the Respondent ran into difficulty they at no time tried to suspend the scheme and Mr Bowers acknowledged that the cohort of staff entitled to the scheme diminished due to high turnover. The Respondent has failed to establish any basis, provided for under this act, for withholding payment to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to pay the bonus but indicated that it would be paid at a later date each time they were asked. As such I am satisfied that the Respondent themselves established later dates of contravention of the act where the accrued bonus was promised to be paid but still was not. These contraventions continued until the Complainant’s final payroll in June 2023 when she was owed her accrued bonus for the entire year. That is €3432. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €3432. |
Dated: 13/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|